Should the state marry gay lovers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mulepadre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AngelAshley said:
That paper lacks substance. Here’s just a few examples:
Click to expand...
I’m glad you read it. 🙂 You are right, this is not a scholarly paper which references research, etc., but a policy paper. I can provide you with information that will back up these arguments, but I have to get some work done today!

Out of curiosity, did you have a chance to read Eve Tushnet yet? She’s pretty open to debate from what I’ve been able to tell.
 
I never said homosexuals are incapable of love. I love many homosexuals and they love me,. Why would I ever think they couldn’t love one another? You infer something that was never said or implied.
Click to expand...
By saying that homosexuals should not get married and comparing your reasoning to why blind people should not be pilots, you are implying that homosexuals lack fundemental criteria that is required for marriage. Love is the main one that comes to mind…
Homosexuals are incapable of independent reproduction with members of their own sex.
Click to expand...
Infertile couples are also incapable of reproduction. So are many elderly couples.
The redefinition of marriage isn’t necessary to ensure individual property rights.
Click to expand...
It’s not about “property rights”, it’s about equality. There are many other rights included in marriage, property rights being one of them.
 
AngelAshley said:
By saying that homosexuals should not get married and comparing your reasoning to why blind people should not be pilots, you are implying that homosexuals lack fundemental criteria that is required for marriage. Love is the main one that comes to mind…
Click to expand...
This is not so. Love is not the only matter. There must be other factors as well including age, consent, opposite genders, and not being closely related.
Infertile couples are also incapable of reproduction. So are many elderly couples.
Click to expand...
Those folks are objectively oriented towards procreation. Same sex couples cannot be.
 
AngelAshley said:
By saying that homosexuals should not get married and comparing your reasoning to why blind people should not be pilots, you are implying that homosexuals lack fundemental criteria that is required for marriage. Love is the main one that comes to mind…
Click to expand...
The fundamental criteria is the lack of “proper equipment” to reproduce, that’s not an implication, that’s a statement. Many people love. So what? Polygamists love lots of people. Marriage for them, too? How 'bout the 40 year old who loves the 15 year old? The sister who loves her brother? The son who loves his mother?
 
The fundamental criteria is the lack of “proper equipment” to reproduce, that’s not an implication, that’s a statement. Many people love. So what? Polygamists love lots of people. Marriage for them, too? How 'bout the 40 year old who loves the 15 year old? The sister who loves her brother? The son who loves his mother?
Click to expand...
Reproduction is not, and never has been a prerequisite to marriage (If I had a dollar for every time I’ve had to type that… sheesh…)
Polygame and incest are completely different arguments with a whole host of different factors involved and I am not here to discuss them (but to give you some insight, I do believe there are rare cases when close relatives should be allowed to get married, but as I said, the issues are complicated and beyond the scope of this thread…)
 
The_Smiter said:
But that is your personal experience. I would posit that such is not the general experience of most transgendered people, especially in the urban northeast. It is certainly not the behavior I have seen where I live on the west coast with respect to such persons who are in our large urban community. I am not discounting your personal experience - I am just thinking that it is not the esperience that the preponderance of persons such as yourself have with others.
Click to expand...
I’m actually not trans. I am biologically female and female-identified. And most of the young people I know who are out queer people have had similar experiences to mine. Nothing too harrowing, just small incidences of harassment. But they add up.

Regardless, to answer the question of the thread, I’m gay and like many of my peers I’m not looking for marriage. I’m perfectly happy with a civil union - I have no desire to upset those who see marriage as a religious and social institution between two loving people of opposite genders. I understand that some people do not approve of my partnership, however, I do not share their beliefs, and plan to live with my partner and one day to have children with her. I am seeking to live unobtrusively and with the safety of knowledge that would protect us and our children and property. I would appreciate the protection of me and my partner under the law, without having to hire a lawyer and pay tons of money. I’d like to go down to the courthouse and sign a piece of paper and not worry. I’d be very happy with my state passing a civil unions law, and in no way have ever pushed for gay marriage, and I know a lot of more moderate queer people my age feel the same way.
 
AngelAshley said:
Reproduction is not, and never has been a prerequisite to marriage (If I had a dollar for every time I’ve had to type that… sheesh…)
Polygame and incest are completely different arguments with a whole host of different factors involved and I am not here to discuss them (but to give you some insight, I do believe there are rare cases when close relatives should be allowed to get married, but as I said, the issues are complicated and beyond the scope of this thread…)
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was. I said the basic equipment was. Lacking the basic equipment makes the act outside the norm. It’s not complicated. The majority of Americans see it in exactly the same way. Not Catholics alone, not members of the LDS alone, but a majority of all Americans. Secular and religious, see it the same way. Individual rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Your argument was love was the measuring tool for marriage. I disagree. I don’t believe the guy who loves his dog, and from all appearances, the dog loves him, should marry either.

Fertile or infertile brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, and so on, should not be allowed to “marry” under any circumstances. You disagree. While I find your views troubling on many levels, I support your right to express them.
 
I didn’t say it was. I said the basic equipment was. Lacking the basic equipment makes the act outside the norm.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “the basic equipment”? And just because it’s not normal, that means it’s wrong? Oh my…
Your argument was love was the measuring tool for marriage. I disagree. I don’t believe the guy who loves his dog, and from all appearances, the dog loves him, should marry either.
Click to expand...
Dogs can’t agree to and sign marriage contracts. (Neither can Children incedentally, which rules out the majority of incestuous/peadophile relationships) Love for a dog is not the same as mutual romantic love.
 
AngelAshley said:
What do you mean by “the basic equipment”? And just because it’s not normal, that means it’s wrong? Oh my…

Yes.

Dogs can’t agree to and sign marriage contracts. (Neither can Children incedentally, which rules out the majority of incestuous/peadophile relationships) Love for a dog is not the same as mutual romantic love

And who arbitrates what is and isn’t appropriate? The dog can engage in the sex act, as can the child. They can do so willingly. This is the failing of the argument that because someone can do something they should…
Click to expand...
 
Do you take any medication other than purely herbal remedies? Because, naturally speaking, medicine is not “normal”. How do you define normal anyay?
And who arbitrates what is and isn’t appropriate? The dog can engage in the sex act, as can the child. They can do so willingly. This is the failing of the argument that because someone can do something they should…
Click to expand...
Well since a dog can’t sign a marriage contract, logic states that it cannot enter a marriage. There is no logic that says hmosexuals lack fundemental prerquisites like this (in a purely legal sense, as per the title of this discussion)

I don’t understand where you’re going with the child/dog sex thing. I agree, just because someone can do something doesn’t mean they should, but if someone can do something, wants to do it, and no harm is done by doing it, then why should they NOT do it?
 
maggiemay2u said:
Then again, it happens all the time, doesn’t it? Most Americans are against unfettered abortion, yet, voila, the Dems in power will do away with restrictions via FOCA. In California, the AG, despite his oath to defend the will of the people, is acting as a friend of the court, I do believe, for the anti prop 8 forces…BTW, didn’t a majority of Americans oppose the stimulus packages of both Bush and Obama? Oh well…
Click to expand...
Off topic but…in reply…
The stimulus package was a need of vote of Congress PDQ. It could not wait to be put on the ballot and millions are losing jobs daily. You can’t compare it and the people informed know it has to be done or do we resign ourselves to a full blown depression. The people realize something has to done and done quickly. Nobody knows if it will work. I’m much better for $800 billion we spend here over two years than the $10 $12 billion a month we’ve blown in Iraq over past few years and have nothing to show for it but over 4200 lives lost.
 
AngelAshley said:
I don’t understand where you’re going with the child/dog sex thing. I agree, just because someone can do something doesn’t mean they should, but if someone can do something, wants to do it, and no harm is done by doing it, then why should they NOT do it?

You have set your boundaries for what is permissible and what is not. The majority of Americans have done the same.
Click to expand...
 
brazenarticle said:
Off topic but…in reply…
The stimulus package was a need of vote of Congress PDQ. It .
Click to expand...
And if we have to repeat the process again in 6 months because of the poorly conceived and passed plans of both administrations, then what? There had to be some remedy, but it needed to be done as need and in language everyone, including the signers, understood. Many of the giveaways would have not gotten through committee, IMHO, and have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Would you pay for a cart of goodies at Price Club without knowing why your AmEX card was being hit for 20K? That’s what congress did, only with a bigger credit line to max out.

If you’d like to continue, please start a new thread, as this, in and of itself, is off topic.👍
 
You have set your boundaries for what is permissible and what is not. The majority of Americans have done the same.
Click to expand...
No, I am stating the facts as to what is “logically viable”, not what is “permissable”. It is not logically viable for a dog to enter into a marriage contract. I’m in no position to state weather it’s permissable or not…
 
maggiemay2u said:
And if we have to repeat the process again in 6 months because of the poorly conceived and passed plans of both administrations, then what? There had to be some remedy, but it needed to be done as need and in language everyone, including the signers, understood. Many of the giveaways would have not gotten through committee, IMHO, and have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Would you pay for a cart of goodies at Price Club without knowing why your AmEX card was being hit for 20K? That’s what congress did, only with a bigger credit line to max out.

If you’d like to continue, please start a new thread, as this, in and of itself, is off topic.👍
Click to expand...
There are many things in this package that need to be done anyway as to roads, bridges, dams, The 50 states can’t go into deficit to raise money to do and many are in trouble as to balancing a budget as it is. States issue debt , but only the US federal government can issue debt to run an actual deficit unlimited and the US Treasury obligations we hope China & Arabs will buy.
 
AngelAshley said:
No, I am stating the facts as to what is “logically viable”, not what is “permissable”. It is not logically viable for a dog to enter into a marriage contract. I’m in no position to state weather it’s permissable or not…
Click to expand...
but what of the 13 year old? You define your boundaries, but decline the same right to the voters.

The answer, my friend, remains the same, the state should not create a right.
 
maggiemay2u said:
but what of the 13 year old? You define your boundaries, but decline the same right to the voters.

The answer, my friend, remains the same, the state should not create a right.
Click to expand...
As Bob D. would suggest, the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, it’s blowing in the wind~~~~
 
“the legal creation of a couple-centered understanding of marriage is achieved by placing the older conjugal meaning of marriage under a moral and legal cloud of suspicion. It will place the law in a stance that is hostile towards cultural and religious communities that adhere to the ethos of conjugal marriage as the backbone of their communal life.”
Click to expand...
TE]]… in theory. Again, no substance is given to this argument.

The current law is not hostile but harmonious with traditional meaning attached to marriage. If homosexual relationships are lawfully included into the meaning of marriage it no longer harmonizes with the ethos of conjugal marriage as the backbone of religious communal life." The disharmony that is caused when homosexuals force their morals on traditional structures of society is the substance of hostility.

That viewing marriage from a couple centered perspective rather than a perspective centered on the conjugal act will blurr the traditional meaning of marriage and place the older conjugal meaning of marriage under a moral and legal cloud of suspicion stands to reason. It’s not a conclusion that requires additional substance for validity. On the contrary, additional substance is required by you to give reason to believe that the change of focus will not make the meaning hostile to religious communities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top